New coupons aim to keep people off generic drugs

Consider Lipitor. The cholesterol-lowering medicine had reigned for a decade as the world’s top-selling medicine ever. Sales peaked at $13 billion a year, about half in the U.S.

Lipitor’s U.S. patent was set to expire at the end of November. Well before then, Pfizer began offering coupons giving patients $50 off each Lipitor prescription in hopes of keeping many of them loyal. Pfizer also signed unprecedented deals with dozens of insurers that lowered their portion of the cost of Lipitor to what a generic would cost them — if they covered only branded Lipitor for six months.

That meant both patients and insurers had a big financial incentive to stick with Lipitor for a while.

On Nov. 30, two slightly cheaper generic versions hit pharmacies, one from India’s Ranbaxy Laboratories and an “authorized generic” manufactured by Pfizer and sold by its partner, generic drugmaker Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., of Parsippany, N.J.

Pfizer’s coupon strategy worked. The “Lipitor For You” program, which includes support such as lifestyle coaching, health tips and heart-healthy recipes, signed up more than 750,000 people. “We never expected that,” said Albert Bourla, head of the Pfizer unit that sells off-patent medicines.

Data from IMS Health show generics grabbed about two-thirds of Lipitor’s prescriptions within five months — a big loss but far less than what would have happened without the coupon program.

On May 30, three more generic Lipitor versions hit U.S. pharmacies. Prices for all the generics plunged overnight to around $15 a month. Pfizer then ended its subsidies to insurers because it would be too costly to make up the difference between that amount and the $175 price of Lipitor.

But the company hasn’t given up on retaining some patients.

Pfizer extended Lipitor For You through December 2014 and raised its maximum subsidy from $50 to $75 per month. That means most insured patients using the coupons still can get Lipitor for less than their monthly copay for a generic drug, unless their insurer charges that extra fee to make up the difference between the brand and generic costs.

By the end of June, about 85 percent of Lipitor users had defected to a generic. Without the coupons, nearly all would have done so. Read, the Pfizer CEO, said the company maintained three times the usual market share a drugmaker gets after a generic hits the market.

Because pills generally cost only a dime or so to make, Pfizer still profited. It reported about $300 million in U.S. Lipitor sales in the second quarter, down from $1.2 billion a year earlier, plus another $1.1 billion in sales in other countries

Other companies are following Pfizer’s lead. Switzerland’s Novartis AG is offering coupons to patients with commercial insurance valid through December 2013 for $4-a-month copays on its Diovan and Diovan HCT, with the company covering the next $50 in out-of-pocket costs. Bristol-Myers Squibb, based in New York, began offering copay coupons for stroke-preventing pill Plavix when its U.S. patent expired in mid-May. As the world’s second-bestselling medication, Plavix brought in about $9 billion last year for Bristol and partner Sanofi SA of France.

Some companies whose blockbusters are getting many generic rivals at once have chosen not to offer coupons, figuring the rock-bottom prices of those generics would prevent the company from retaining enough patients to make it worth their while. Merck’s Singulair asthma and allergy pill, the world’s 11th-best-selling drug last year at about $5.5 billion, went off patent on Aug. 3. The company said it expects about 90 percent of sales to evaporate within two months.

Still, experts say coupons aren’t likely a passing fad given the number of drugs coming off patent.

“It’s good for consumers, because they don’t bear the cost and they can stay on the brand,” says Les Funtleyder, health care fund manager at private equity fund Poliwogg.

One comment

I suspect that efforts by the pharmaceutical companies to take business away from the producers of generics will, in the long run, hurt consumers. I recall that when upstart telephone companies began taking away business from the big companies, the giants responded by lowering their charges in order to drive the little guys out. They succeeded because many consumers – who were getting a good rate from a small company – didn’t think the matter through and decided they liked the sound of the big name better. After the little guys were driven out of business, the monopolies were back in a position to charge whatever they wanted. Granted, it’s more understandable that a consumer would be inclined toward a known brand when the product is medication and not telephone service, but the principle is still the same. Competition in business helps the consumer.